Archived requests

[change source]

Curitiba

[change source]
Curitiba (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

An article with a lot of potential, very good lenghtwise, needs a few red links removing, other from that, not bad at all! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the first few sentences, I can see problems with this article: First, it is not written in Simple English. I believe that I could slap a ((complex)) tag on that article because of how complex the article sounds to me. There are quite a few words on that page that are too complex for Simple English users to understand and those would need to be changed out before I could support this becoming a VGA. Cheers, Razorflame 19:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, but I'll be working on it. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, I believe that this would be a decent addition to our VGA pages ;). Cheers, Razorflame 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a few edits yesterday; The article needs a serious copyediting, preferably by someone who knows Portuguese well (native Portuguese; very good in English, or the other way around). In general, sentences are too long, sometimes there are "stylistic mishaps". I don't blame it on the editors, the article is 101k long, probably one of the longest we have overall. Getting this to VGA will probably need the full-time attention of a few people. --Eptalon (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the lead, I can see that major simplification is necessary here. Many of the words are rather complex, as is the overall prose structure. Juliancolton (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article general has to deal with the following problems:
  • Make sentences shorter, generally to about half their length
  • Get rid of translation oddities
I tried to do a general copyedit, but was not very fast (It should be obvious where in the lead the simplification stops). Help would really be welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot chocolate

[change source]
Hot chocolate (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Malinaccier (talk) (review) 23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to be that late (I had little time to look at the article earlier); Anyway, here are my comments:
  • The quality of the article itself is very good
  • Personally, I think that place names and the names of people should generally be linked (first occurrence: Puerto escoondido; There are two hidden harbours in Mexico, one in Oaxaca, the other in Baja California Sur, two in Venezuela, and one in Honduras), also don't be afraid to link the different spices.
  • I added one of the studies (freely avaiable) showing that antioxidants as they are found in tea and cocoa are good against heart disease.
Other than those comments, it is of VGA quality...--Eptalon (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity

[change source]
Nudity (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Controversial subject, article has many images; some of them show nude people. I think the images are tasteful, and generally non-pornographic. Spent quite some time trying to focus on the different aspects of nudity (also the issue of what constitutes nudity, how much of it is a taboo, and how little is needed to make that feeling go away). Article as of now, is 29k, after deductions 19k are left. Readability scores are available. No red-links. In my opinion, the article needs serious copyediting (by people other than me), and possibly more references. Just curious on your input. --Eptalon (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this has the potential of a VGA. I think that the various aspects of nudity are well covered.

None of the images could be considered porn.

I agree that it needs a serious overwork by someone who is a native English speaker. I'm prepared to do this but it might have to wait for a while. Amandajm (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Lawless

[change source]
Did not go to vote. Giggy (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy Lawless (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is a superior article. Lawless Fan (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fra Angelico

[change source]
Looks good to me; I added a link to Giorgio Vasari (with the idea of having another red link to fix), but strangely enough, you had thought about it, about half a year ago; fix the two remaining red-links (stubs should be alright), and I don't see much in the way of making it a VGA. Very good work you do. --Eptalon (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help! Giggy (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Giggy!
  • The term "Early Renaissance" is one of three divisions used to describe Renaissance Painting. Early, High and Mannerist.
  • Where I have expressed uncertainty.. "He seems to have been trained....", "Eugenius or Nicholas" it is because the facts are unknown. If you take a look at the intro to the article on Giotto, which I am still simplifying, you will discover just how little can be known about a very famous person. (And even when it comes to Leonardo da Vinci, there are great gaps in our knowledge. No-one knows at what point in time he moved out of his apprenticeship and opened his own workshop. There is a gap of several years where the only piece of knowledge that we have about Leo is that the night police arrested him for sodomy, and he was cleared of the charge.)
  • Re "great number". The expression "a lot of artists from whom he could learn" doesn't say it. There was not just a lot of artists living in Florence. There was a "magnitude of extraordinary artists" living in Florence. And they continued to increase in number and excellence.
Amandajm (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amandajm, you're welcome!
  • The Early Renaissance stuff is fine as worded now.
  • Yes, I was worried about the "he seems to have..." phrases because I wasn't sure how much is known. If you say there isn't much known I will take your word for it... just make sure you have a source there. (A source for there not much being known, if necessary.)
  • My concern with the "a great number" is that it doesn't use the simplest language possible... but if it's the only way to accurately say what you intend to say then that's fine with me.
Good luck when you take this to voting. Giggy (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hot Chili Peppers

[change source]
Closed as successful, 100% support after one week. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Red Hot Chili Peppers

[change source]

Hi. I've done a fair bit of work on this one and I think it meets all VGA criteria now. See the talk page for a comparison to the criteria. Note; for my last VGA, Powderfinger, it was asked that a philanthropy section be written so it's comprehensive. I've looked and there's little of any such info that can be written about this band. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Expect some new red links and a couple fact tags when it comes out of "in-use". Oddly, copyediting is getting lighter as I go, heavy at top but the structure cleaned up as it went along.. tons of reference changes to templates going on as well. -- Creol(talk) 08:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped it between 1 and two grade levels (depending on which readability test you look at). Solid references through most but there were a couple things said or felt in the article that were not referenced. Only a couple of red-links and realy only two-three that need more than a very basic stub (Billboard Top 100 - most wanted forever.. realy needs an article) Every band member and producer could do with an article, but the smaller ones could be overlooked (although would be better to have them). The bigger names, Clinton and Rubin should definitely be done. -- Creol(talk) 09:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your help. Should now be free of redlinks and fact tags. Giggy (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for Red Hot Chili Peppers

[change source]

It's been up for comments for a while, and I think it's ready. Ryan just took a look and made some very minor changes (thanks!). I think it's now at VGA quality. Giggy (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Red Hot Chili Peppers
  1. Support, and your welcome, Giggy. :-) I read over the article, and I didn't see really any problems what-so-ever. I have fixed the overlinking problem, and I don't think there are any further problems than that. Looks well written to me, and it does look like it meets all the requirements. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, it's very remarkable how well-balanced this article is. It's not long-winded, and yet, not short-winded either. Additionally, it balances depth of information with ease of reading. Definitely a very good article in my humble opinion. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - fixed a typo which I can't believe went unnoticed for so long! --Gwib -(talk)- 16:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheepish grin. Thanks! Giggy (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Giggy, you did a great job on dealing with the comments I raised. Excellent stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - This reads really well (there are some words that need a wikt: link (originally, successful, era etc..) but then other VGAs have similar problems (eg: Jessica Alba and raised is undefined); other than that I think that it passes WP:VGA. fr33kman t - c 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Apparently I can do this, so I Support. Giggy (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for Red Hot Chili Peppers
Comments for Red Hot Chili Peppers

Once again, my apologies for being late on these...

No worries - there's still plenty of time now.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Replied inline in italics. Giggy (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments

What year did a key player leave? What year did he return? What year was the best album? What year was the last album? These facts give us a clear picture of the band's history, which is then expanded with details and references.
Good suggestion. I've gone and done this in the lead, hopefully it's better now. Giggy (talk)
"Quit" is a short English word, but is not an "easy" one.
The statement should not be made "A and B never quit". This is stating a positive as a double negative. Instead, write "Two musicians, A and B, have been with the band since the beginning."
"C decided to quit" should be written "C left the band in 19-- because of drug addiction. He was asked to return in 19--, when he was well.
Thanks for the tips, both are done. Giggy (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amandajm (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball uniform

[change source]
Closed as successful at 100% after one week. --Matilda (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball uniform (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Proposal for Baseball uniform

[change source]

Hey there, I would like to propose the article, baseball uniform, to WP:VGA status. I believe it is well written enough and meets all of VGA criteria. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Text-wise, it's quite small (11.3KB of text), but what I'm most concerned about is the fact that these reader ages are so high. The more recent VGA's like Ana Ivanovic or Charles Spurgeon have much lower reading ages. Try working on a bit of simplification, then I'll come back, more throughoutly read it and find you sentences which need re-working. --Gwib -(talk)- 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for Baseball uniform

[change source]

Hey there. I've worked almost 3 months on this article, getting this article up to WP:GA status, and I think this can become a WP:VGA. I've checked the PVGA criteria, and I believe it meets all its requirements. The article is about 13k long, having 5k the lowest for VGAs. I believe it is well written, well referenced, and is capable of becoming a VGA. Simple Wikipedia's best article's are often VGAs, and I think baseball uniform is one of Simple Wikipedia's best work yet. Any comments are appreciated. If there's something that needs more work on, please point them out and I'm sure we can resolve them as a community. -- RyanCross (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Baseball uniform
  1. Support - I had before helped this article for GA, and unless Ryan completely destroyed it, it's a very excellent article. Ryan and others have done much work to this article and it appears very good. Many references, good structure, overall very good. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Well written and like AE said good structure.--CPacker (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Kennedy (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. After a lot of copyediting, I feel comfortable supporting. That said, please check my changes to make sure everything still makes sense and is correct. Also, I recommend you have someone else give it another copyedit, as there are still some areas where it could be more clear (someone who knows something about baseball (I'm Australian!) would probably be helpful). Giggy (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Gwib -(talk)- 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I admit I know nothing about Baseball, so the article could have factual inaccuracies. But it's simple, I understood it, and the refs I checked seemed fine. - tholly --Talk-- 15:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, although Baseball uniform#Shoulder patches seems a bit more work. Could you give an example of a shoulder patch? What sort of thing did the honour? Simplicity wise, looks fine. Microchip • talk 07:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support-- Tdxiang 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for Baseball uniform

Oppose - too many problems at first glance. I wholeheartedly apologise for not being part of the review here but I cannot support with so many issues (as detailed in the comments section). I'm a little surprised that some of our more experienced editors support the article with the current number of issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at time of voting for Baseball uniform

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! I've fixed most of the problems. Though, I need clarification on a few of them mentioned. I have already pointed them out if you read my comments above. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the problems and issues you pointed out, The Rambling Man, have been resolved. Thanks! -- RyanCross (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: This discussion has been running for over a week now, so if anyone would like to close this, you may. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma

[change source]
Closed as successful at 80% after one week. Giggy (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oklahoma (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've had it up for review on the proposed good page, but it meets VGA standards and I belive its ready for a vote--CPacker (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Oklahoma

[change source]
  1. Support as nominator--CPacker (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per my comments at WP:PGA recently. Giggy (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Redlinks in the state informatino box doesn't bother me. Otherwise a very good article. Kennedy (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support oppose Support - I appreciate I am new here and also as a native speaker of English I am unable to comment on whether the article is expressed clearly enough. But in running it through the Microsoft statistics tool it says there are 23% passive sentences, the Flesch reading ease is 35.2 and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level is 13.2 - I think we should be aiming lower. There are 4.6 sentences per paragraph and the average sentence length is just over 20 words. So perhaps we could work on shortening sentences and making sure they are in the active tense. However, I found it an interesting article and worth reading. --Matilda (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed to oppose as I think the readability statistics are too far off the mark. As it is an intersting article I am happy to support promotion once we have made it more readable per the statistics. We need shorter sentences and they need to be in the active tense not passive. We need to make sure any harder words are linked to simple English wiktionary or more simple words chosen.--Matilda (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)     I support now - the readability issues have been addressed - it is an interesting article. Congrats to CPacker :-) --Matilda (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support The red links don't really bother me either, to me it's a VGA.Yotcmdr Talk
  6. Support Very good, one of the best articles I've ever seen. Standards are getting higher. Minor or Prime 07:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Looks well done to me now. Much better than before! -- RyanCross (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Looks good to me. - tholly --Talk-- 15:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for Oklahoma

[change source]
  1. Oppose - several issues in the lead (as I've intimated above) - I'll need to review the whole article in full, and in depth, before changing my mind. I'll try to get onto it sooner rather than later. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose, sorry but it's not VGA yet. I fixed five typos a while ago, not even reading anything. It has some glitches and needs work first. Go for GA first. But it's not a bad article, keep working on it! -- American Eagle (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Oppose Too much red links in the box with links about the state. Other than that, I'm okay with it. Try to fix those red links first. Minor or Prime 10:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It took forever but all red links in the box are blue now.--CPacker (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Oklahoma

[change source]

During the the American Civil War several Indian tribes sided with the Confederacy because they owned slaves also. – uncited and needs expansion. Also seems extremely shallow. Slavery can't be the only reason why the natives joined the Confederacy. Surely there were other reasons like promises of land or what-not. cassandra (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well slavery was the common bond between all of the different Indian nations in Oklahoma at that time. So thats why I added that part. It is sourced #15; in fact everythig in the article is sourced. I am also adding a little more info about the Civil War and why the Indians joined.--CPacker (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've fixed everything except the citation thing; Im not sure what your wanting. Every source is right after what it talks about. Thanks for the comments Im ready for the other ones when you get a chance.--CPacker (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you get a chance, check out w:WP:CITE which recommends that citations should be placed immediately after punctuation where possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I have on the page now, theres not a cite after every sentence because that would be repetitive. The cite is after several sentences but its for all that info before it.--CPacker (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain - Flesch Reading Ease score = Rates text on a 100-point scale; the higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document. For most standard documents, aim for a score of approximately 60 to 70. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score = Rates text on a U.S. school grade level. For example, a score of 8.0 means that an eighth grader can understand the document. For most documents, aim for a score of approximately 7.0 to 8.0. Both scores look at average sentence length (the number of words divided by the number of sentences) and the average number of syllables per word (the number of syllables divided by the number of words) --Matilda (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more statistics orn readability at Talk:Oklahoma. Recent edits have improved readability abd eliminated obvious spelling and grammar changes. Flesch reading ease is at 46.1 and Flesch-Kinkaid grade level at 11.2 - still not ideal but good progress.--Matilda (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for an article to go through the GA stage before it can be a VGA. If the article is of VGA standards, there is no need for it to be certain it is of lower standards first. Of course, that being said, many articles show up for VGA before they are even ready for GA. Some fail here and then get tested under GA when it realy should be done the other way for articles which are not up to basic VGA standards (the listed criteria with the widest interpretation of the requirements.) -- Creol(talk) 06:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, exactly what I assumed! Thanks Creol. -- RyanCross (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Voter sign-up" I'm assuming was an attempt to simplify the term "voter registration". I do not know how to simplify that if you find "sign-up" to be confusing. Probably if we get a good article going we won't need to explain it. cassandra (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well in the UK there's no such thing (as far as I know) as "voter sign-up" - we have registration... but even "voter registration" is a little complex. But if it's linked to en-wiki then I see no major problem. "sign-up", unlinked or unexplained, is not good as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 voter registration linked to the enwiki article. I note that that article explains When registering to vote, one may declare an affiliation with a political party. This declaration of affiliation does not cost any money, and it is not the same as being a dues-paying, card-carrying member in good standing of a party; for example, a party cannot prevent anybody from declaring his or her affiliation with them, but it can refuse requests for full membership. I learned something new :-) --Matilda (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to be using enwp for definitions. It sets a poor precedent, and the content there isn't guaranteed to be simple. Can we create an article here with a simplified translation instead, please? Giggy (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

[change source]
Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Sinbad (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

[change source]
United States (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Sinbad (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States

[change source]
United States (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Sinbad (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the ((complex)) and ((unsourced)) tags and it would be ready to discuss. My issue is that there are several sections which seem pointless and oversimplified (example) and other sections which are far too complex for the average SEWP reader (another example). A throughout copyedit, removal or red links and simplification is in order. --Gwib -(talk)- 16:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Thats why i think people should get involved now so that we can do this article into a very good one.More suggestions?--Sinbad (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's good thinking, but the PVGA page is for articles that are basically ready. See WP:PR for community building. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Gothic architecture

[change source]
Comments
  1. Gothic architecture is the result of an engineering challenge: how to span in stone ever-wider surfaces from ever-greater heights? ... From 1100 onward, architects experimented with innovations that, once properly combined, allowed the dissolution of the wall and a fluid arrangement of space.
  2. The increase in knowledge and skills acquired over the years, meant that stone was specifically cut so that it fitted next to other stone blocks with precision. Therefore, the large blocks of stone favoured by the Normans, were replaced by shaped stone
  3. Another major change was that the hollow walls used by the Normans were not used by later architects. Walls and pillars were solid and this allowed them to cope with much greater weights.
  4. pointed arches ... allowed a much greater weight to be carried when compared to a Norman rounded arch and allowed architects to raise vaults much higher than was possible with Romanesque architecture / the pointed arch, which has a lesser lateral thrust than the round arch and is easily adaptable to openings of various widths and heights.
  5. stone ribs to distribute the weight of the vault onto columns and piers all the way to the ground; the vault could now be made of lighter, thinner stone and the walls opened to accommodate ever-larger windows
  6. the article does note that flying buttresses help to hold the vault up but doesn't explain that they do so by spreading the weight - it isn't clear that they are not pushing the weight up. These external structures absorb the outward thrust of the vault at set intervals just under the roof, making it possible to reduce the building’s exterior masonry shell to a mere skeletal framework.
As a result of these engineering evolutions buildings could be larger and I think the article could bring this aspect out more
  • I am not sure how the subsection on the Church links to the topic. What you seem to have is a short history of the church at the period and then it is not clear whether church-related buildings were in the Gothic style because they were built at the period or for some other reason - for example, did the Church promote the style of architecture. My understanding is that the Church did promote the style. There are a couple of points that could be made:
  1. the Church increased its prosperity and wanted larger buildings (again ref to support is History learning Site)
  2. the article covers height but it should be in the lead as an important feature. The met's essay says for example: The typical elevation of a Gothic cathedral interior, with storey upon corresponding storey, draws the gaze to the highest point in the vault, in an irresistible upward pull symbolic of the Christian hope of leaving the terrestrial world for a heavenly realm. Such a transcendent experience of architecture is reinforced by the rich stained-glass windows, sometimes spanning the entire height of the edifice. As well as not emphasising height in the lead, I think we should bring in the heavenward aspect. It is mentioned in the section on Abbot Suger but it needs to be in the section on the chuirch and this possibly needs some rejuggling.
  • The Met essay also draw the important point of the influence of the architecture on other art: The stylistic language first formulated in stone on a monumental scale resonated in other media. ... Gothic vocabulary gradually permeated all forms of art throughout Europe.
A VGA is meant to be complete, show all sides of the story - my comments relate to some sides of the story that could be added to make the article more complete. It is a most enjoyable article to read otherwise. --Matilda (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I agree with your suggestions. I'll add a section on the engineering aspects. I must apologise for my apparent rudeness in ignoring your comments. I've had a lot to occupy my time in the last few weeks and haven't been on Simple Wiki at all. Amandajm (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived voting

[change source]

Hot chocolate

[change source]
Hot chocolate (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Malinaccier (talk) (review) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - Nicely written, no redlinks, contains helpful images, and an abundant sources to back the article. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not promoted, does not meet criteria, fails to get 6 votes--BG7even 11:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Fra Angelico

[change source]
Fra Angelico (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Response
  • I don't believe that this article requires more simplification. It has been written for an average reading age of 10 to 12 years, and could be easily read by an intelligent 8 year old. Any difficulties (eg "beatification") are explained within the text (eg "this means he is on the way to becoming a saint"). We are not writing for very young kids. We are writing here for people who are likely to take a real interest in the subjects we are presenting.
  • Whilst I agree that the article is simple, there are too many ambiguous words in various sections. To give you an example, "rich patrons ... liked to show off their wealth by ordering paintings that had lots of bright colour" - show off their wealth is ambiguous, did they show it to everyone before they ordered paintings? Did they boast about it? Maybe a better wording could be "rich patrons liked to display their wealth ...."? --Gwib -(talk)- 12:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response "Show off" is obviously an easier term than "display". It is the term that children use. It says "show of their wealth by ordering paintings ...." This indicates that it was the ordering of such a painting that displayed their wealth. No, Gwib, it doesn't suggest that they flashed their money around before ordering. And as for boasting... they probably did just that! "Have you seen the painting I ordered for Santa Maria? I paid 200 ducats for the gold alone!"
Gwib, I wouldn't even bother to get started with your pseudo-innocent nit-picking, if I were you. It falls into the same category as your deliberately procative proposals for GAs, and your continuous repetition of the same theme at the Jesus page. If this was a different site, I would refer to some of your behaviour as trolling, but because it is wikipedia, I am supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt. You, Gwib, are merely "Glib" with a cute little speech impediment. Amandajm (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I did some copyediting on the article; very small changes here and there. I also linked some of the words. The only thing that remains a mystery to me is the Carmine Friary Angelico supposedly Joined in 1417. Taking the Italian article on him, they say that he took the vows in the convent San Domenico in Fiesole, in 1418; he joined a sub-group of the Dominicans, the Dominicani osservanti (observant Dominicans?) which follow a stricter rule than the rest. But more to the point, a lot of work has been put into the article, and I think it deserves the tag. --Eptalon (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thank you Eptalon. Your changes were good. I've further improved a couple of them. Will look into the Carmine thing. I think he started off in a Carmine Convent which was nearer, before joining the Dominicans. He seems to have kept himself out of the less-than-pleasant activities of the "Watch Dogs of Heaven"! Amandajm (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was less about his activities, but more about the fact that Carmine should probably be linked to some religious order (the Carmelites)? - As i said, I didn't find anything on Carmine relating to a religious order or place name in the region; all I got was a tint of red. --Eptalon (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response OK! I have no idea where the Carmine quote comes from, but it is interesting, particularly as it gives a specific date. I suspect it might be the old Britannica. I now have an entirely different date for his birth, about 10 years earlier, from a very recent and reliable publication, and supported (broadly) by others. Konig gives the date of his entry into the Doinican friary as 1407 (when he must have been about 20-22) But he didn't take orders till much later. However, he did do a lot of artworks, particularly towards the end of his novitiate. Thjis makes me suspect that he may have worked far more on those illuminated manuscripts than is generally acknowledged.
The only explanation that I can see for his specifically dated presence in a Carmine friary rather than the Domincan one is that there was recurrent outbreaks of plague, and at various times the monks took refuge in Cortona and other such places that were at a higher altitute than Fiesole. There was also a suppression of the so-called "Observant" branches of the Dominicans. It could be that for either of these reasons Fra Angelico spent some brief time with the Carmini. Either way, I can't verify it, and the information is not of broad significance to his artistic career (as far as I can understand) so I have deleted it, and included instead the new referenced dates that I have found. Amandajm (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I see the warning Warning: Default sort key "Angelico, Fra" overrides earlier default sort key "Fra Angelico". One should get rid of it in any case. --Cethegus (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response I don't know what one does about that Amandajm (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Not promoted, does not meet criteria, fails to get 6 votes--BG7even 11:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity

[change source]
Nudity (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

 Neutral - I have mixed feelings about the article. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 11:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my vote. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 05:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Support - Good work has been done on this article and this is definitely one for the VGA ages :). Cheers, Razorflame 16:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, result pending discussion--BG7even 15:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on one cotton-picking minute. The concerns raised by Juliancolton are still active. Please don't close the discussion until he has revisited. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PeterSymonds: !votes last for one week. Also, note: "closed pending discussion" - i've closed new !votes, not discussion ;). Also, I need an issue re: neutral !votes clearing up first. (See User talk:Eptalon#WP:PVGA) Thanks, BG7even 15:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely said 71% = promoted at some point, but oh well. The neutral comment can be discarded; it did not give any issues about the article, and the editor has not returned to elaborate. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. In that case it passes with 83.3recurring% ;) I'll wait a few hours for Juliancolton to comment on it (if he wishes to do so) and then i'll complete the promotion. Thanks, BG7even 15:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are still problems with sourcing. Examples:

Juliancolton (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the matter Juliancolton. I think they are all valid points, and I can see that they are issues, however at the same time I don't feel comfortable going against consensus. Hmm... would you be ok with me promoting it and seeing if the issues are fixed in say a month or so. If they are not fixed we can request a demotion. Is that ok with you? Thanks, BG7even 16:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. The quality of the article overrules consensus. If it's not ready, it shouldn't be promoted. We should put it on hold until the issues are fixed. The issues are major and significant enough to preclude promotion until they are fixed. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going against consensus if there are blatant issues with the article. Juliancolton (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you raise good points, and I agree. What would be a better course of action? Close as not done or give it say 5 days pending the issues are fixed. I.e. Closed to !voting, but outcome not yet decided. Thanks, BG7even 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have notified all those who voted in this discussion (except for Juliancolton since he's obviously aware of this) of the concerns that have been raised. I say throw out the "consensus" right now, let this discussion go, then have a vote at a later time once the sourcing concerns have been met. After all, "verifibility and accuracy should come above everything else." Either way (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Hello there; I see that some of these points may need sourcing, while others do not. It is not difficult to imagine that different cultures have different ideas about nudity (As an example: A person bathing naked on a beach in France, the Netherlands, or Sweden will probably be asked to move down the beach a little, to not disturb the clothed bathers; a person bathing naked on a beach in the US risks a fine or a prison term). It is also not difficult to imagine that within a given culture, people will have different ideas about what levels of nudity are acceptable. In other words, such statements probably do not need sourcing - they are obvious; Others, like the statement that a woman not wearing a burqa in Afghanistan will bring shame onto her family will probably need sourcing (Problem there: how do you source such a statement?) - Our problem here is that if we stick to the process, the article should not be promoted (it lacks sourcing). This will of course also mean that certain articles will never be promoted (Berlin Wall is another example), as the events they describe are too recent (or too controversial). To find sources for our nudity article, we'll probably need an Ethnographer, or a Sociologist (which we are unlikely to have, in our 50-odd editors). To make things short:

Given how difficult it is to get votes, I'd opt for promotion, fixing and demotion, rather than not promoting, fixing and re-listing; however I contributed massively to the article, so I may not exactly be neutral in that regard.

Something else to consider: Some consider nudity a controversial topic; We say ourself that WP is not censored, there is no forbidden knowledge. Now what message would a nudity VGA blurb on the front page convey? - This decision therefore may also have political implications; whoever takes it will probably get some criticism from either the editors that are for more control (our poor children..) or those that are for less control (..a hidden form of censorship). All the best. --Eptalon (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No control = censorship? How does that work? Anyways, I'd say promote-fix-depromote, but with a view to waiting to stick it on the Main Page until the issues are fixed, although I understand there's going to be a bit of argument about when it is (after all, who will say when it is fit enough to go on the Main Page? Eptalon can't, so it would probably go straight to another PVGA vote, defeating the object of passing it now. As for the censorship, G-spot went to the Main Page, why can't Nudity? MC8 (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closed; Not Promoted - Outstanding Issues/Not enough !votes--BG7even

Gothic architecture

[change source]
Gothic architecture (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Result: Promoted to VGA --Eptalon (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

[change source]
Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Result: Not promoted, does not meet criteria, fails to get 6 votes--Eptalon (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

[change source]
United Kingdom (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Result: Not promoted, does not meet criteria, fails to get 6 votes--Eptalon (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States

[change source]
United States (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Result: Not promoted, does not meet criteria, fails to get 6 votes--Eptalon (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper

[change source]
Voting ends 19:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for some time now, and I'd like this to make VG sometime soon. I think the article is in pretty good shape, and currently meets the good article standards. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. PVGA voting, here we come...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]

Oppose

[change source]

Potential Expansion

[change source]

RAID

[change source]
Vote closed as unsuccessful after a week. Giggy (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RAID (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Has been listed above for 3 weeks, I think we might give it a vote

Support

[change source]
  1. Support - No problems I can immediately see. Kennedy (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I cannot say that it is the sort of topic that I gravitate too ;-) but it is readable and I learned lots :-) . I checked the readability statistics at http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/readability1.2.py?page=simple%3ARAID and I think given the stats generated it is suitable for Simple wikipedia readership notwithstanding its daunting subject matter. Congratulations on making a difficult topic into simple English. No major spelling errors that I can see. --Matilda (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support After reading it again carefully and checking out the readability link above, I think it can work as a VGA. I'd want to re-read it again after it's been promoted though, to change some of the more German MoS to English MoS. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Weak oppose - I'm willing to change to a support, but this entire section is too complex. With sentences like:

It's hard to oppose, because the quality and quantity are both excellent. It's just some complex issues are hard to simplify without making them redundant. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address osme of these issues, i will however leave some notes here:
  • Certain RAID levels (those that use striping, generally) can give a performance boost with access patterns that are like linear reads (either working with large contiguous files, or many users accessing different parts of the same file); For a single user with random access patterns on small files, there is no performance improvement with RAID.
  • In statistics and linear algebra there are whole theories that assume (or deal with correlated variables. What the paragraph wants to address: When RAID was designed, errrors were assumed to not be correlated; the way it is used today though is that after one error occurs, another is more likely to occur (because disks are same age, etc).
  • In computer science design is very often a trade-off between speed and memory/storage. RAID 5 uses XORS (which can be done easily. RAID6 needs to do the full Reed-Solomon calculations, which are much more time intensive.
  • Hardware RAID controllers needs special drivers
As I said, I have done some improvements, but other things will be difficult to improve.--Eptalon (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to address one point brought up above, but that leads to one red link in the article (which can be quite important). In my opinion, RAID is a very complicated system and some things just can't be expressed in pure Simple English. Chenzw  Talk  13:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that red link. Not that hard ot explain what a device driver is --Eptalon (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

Still about 5 red links? Kennedy (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all the red-links I found, any left?--Eptalon (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found one: Write Anywhere File Layout - I found it here Kennedy (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a few typos, which I have sorted Kennedy (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote the WAFL (vewr short stub)--Eptalon (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your spelling is terrible! ;) Kennedy (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speling? - What Sepling? ;) --Eptalon (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should explain how writing to a piece of paper is different from writing data to a hard disk (ie. translating the data into a stream of pos/neg polarized magetism that represent bits). I mean you edit a document on your ocmputer, when you click save that document is "translated" in some way to be written to a part of the hard disk, when you load the document again the translation is done the other way? - For writing to a CD or DVD, this is mostly the same, except the outcome is not magnetic, but rather light that is bent one way or the other.)? --Eptalon (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least a basic overview would be good. Obviously, you're not literally writing on the hard disk/CD rom, so to avoid confusion it'd be good, IMO. Giggy (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) The less impressive: A box containing disks, and a controller, attached with a cable. The more impressive: A 19" rack (empty wardrobe), with slots that can contain disks. See for example [One of Sun Microsystems RAID systems] or [IBM RAID offerings] - these are the actual systems holding the harddisks. Depending on how you attach the storage, how many servers want to access it, etc, these systems usually cost 5-6 digit figures (in USD); for "home grown" apps, calculate like USD 500 for a controller, plus the disks and a case (so probably like USD 1500 up, for a new system). I was at Sun Microsystems once, there they had like a "room full of wardrobes" (called "storage park", another room full of machines ("machine park") and like 2-3 diskless terminals to manage these - As stated RAID is one of the technologies used by Storage Area Networks.--Eptalon (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, those pics explain it, thanks. But can anyone find a picture on commons (or take one)? It's just that I think the article would benefit with something like the examples above. - tholly --Talk-- 16:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added two images to common; they are of course not as "up market" or "high performance" as those expensive systems by Sun or IBM, but they show how a real-world RAID array could look like in a server of a small enterprise. --Eptalon (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter

[change source]
Jupiter (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I thought of putting this up for GA first but having looked at it quite a few times I really think it might make VGA first time. I appreaciate most of the writing has been done by me but I think that shouldn't count against it if it's good enough. As far as I can tell it's pretty comprehensive, definetly long enough and has no red links. It's as good as Saturn, an existing VGA. Cheers. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by nominator, moved to WP:PGA FSM Noodly? 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support - per nominator. F S M 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]

Comments

[change source]

-- Creol(talk) 19:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The condensation of Helium part is correct. read condensation gas can condense at extremely high or low temperatures

The Amalthea bit  Done. I sorted it out. And as for Jupiter in the Solar System I only added that recently. When I've expanded it wil you support? F S M 21:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followups: (+1)
  • The section on Amalthea is still wrong. Others were found using earth-based telescopes. Amalthea was just the last to be found visually through a telescope, others were found examining photographs taken through a telescope.
  • The condensation issue is still there. While condensation can happen at high temperatures (give a high enough pressure), it is not the temperature that causes the condesation, but the pressure. As writen, "its so hot, it rains helium" (paraphrased), it says it is because of the heat.
  • Two images bring up a couple more issues. There are two images with both putting in a lot of info on the Red Spot. While the first also is about the size comparison between the Earth and Jupiter, the extra info is not needed in that section. The use of two very similar images so near each other is a bit overkill. Also, in the text for the images, in image1 it says the Red Spot is 2x the size of Earth. In the second image it says the "little white spot" is 2x the size of Earth and as there are two white spots (and a bunch of grey ones), the littler of the white spots by comparison is about 1/25th of the Red Spot (5x wider and higher) then Earth would be 1/50th the size of the Red Spot. Even the larger of the two white storms, at 1/5 the size of the Red (little under 1/2 the width/height/diameter), would be under 1/2 as big as the Earth given the first image. (side note: if the scale is correct on the first image, the Red Spot is 1.38x larger than the Earth making little white 1/20th Earth) -- Creol(talk) 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First image is innacurate, I am going to change it to an animation of Voyager 1's approach to Jupiter. I fixed the Amalthea bit now, I think, and I added the high pressure to the condesing helium sentence. F S M 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— AE (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We can't use Jupiter every time, it would sound odd. Half and half is good.

Cheers, F S M 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More